| Literature DB >> 32382528 |
Hyunseok Jee1, Soo Hyun Park2, Saejong Park2.
Abstract
This study provides a newly updated perspective of information on severely screened 21 previous studies of the various measurement methods for improving physical fitness and providing determined cutoff values from our reserved elderly human database. We aimed to provide scientific evidence-based information regarding physical fitness standards for developing useful prognostics, promoting and maintaining health programs for sarcopenic elderly. 21 previous studies emphasizing criterion referenced standards and receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve analyses for improving physical fitness were screened. For predicting the prevalence of sarcopenia, the t-test, logistic regression, linear regression, ROC curve analyses, and voluntary categorizations such as the twentieth or sixtieth percentile classification were used. Based on these scientific evidences, we determined cutoff values from our reserved DB and realized that 75 years for men and 70 years for women are the transitional period during which there are large declines in muscle and fat mass (p < 0.01), which reflects physical function tests (p < 0.01) in both genders. Using the six factors with ideal cutoff thresholds, an individual exercise program can be designed for alleviating symptoms of frailty caused by sarcopenia for the elderly.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32382528 PMCID: PMC7196987 DOI: 10.1155/2020/1638082
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
The characteristics of elderly subjects.
| Men ( | Women ( | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| High muscle | Low muscle |
| High muscle | Low muscle |
| |
| Age (yr) | 70.92 ± 4.36 | 73.12 ± 5.13 | <0.001 | 70.89 ± 4.91 | 73.94 ± 5.54 | <0.001 |
| High (cm) | 167.67 ± 4.95 | 161.45 ± 4.78 | <0.001 | 154.14 ± 4.29 | 148.19 ± 4.22 | <0.001 |
| Weight (kg) | 68.74 ± 6.64 | 57.80 ± 7.19 | <0.001 | 60.24 ± 7.06 | 50.74 ± 5.57 | <0.001 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 24.48 ± 2.21 | 22.19 ± 2.45 | <0.001 | 25.36 ± 3.13 | 23.16 ± 2.58 | <0.001 |
| Lean mass (kg) | 28.60 ± 2.40 | 23.31 ± 1.88 | <0.001 | 20.47 ± 1.62 | 16.80 ± 1.19 | <0.001 |
| Per BF (%) | 24.53 ± 5.03 | 24.44 ± 6.30 | 0.855 | 35.64 ± 6.49 | 35.91 ± 5.74 | 0.524 |
| Waist (cm) | 88.30 ± 6.45 | 82.17 ± 7.40 | <0.001 | 89.53 ± 8.77 | 84.10 ± 8.34 | <0.001 |
| TC (mg/dl) | 184.78 ± 35.59 | 180.61 ± 36.63 | 0.209 | 195.88 ± 37.52 | 196.70 ± 36.00 | 0.762 |
| TG (mg/dl) | 109.29 ± 49.16 | 98.99 ± 40.98 | 0.012 | 118.51 ± 49.67 | 123.53 ± 55.50 | 0.187 |
| HDL-C (mg/dl) | 54.85 ± 12.90 | 56.68 ± 13.73 | 0.133 | 57.80 ± 14.05 | 58.28 ± 14.07 | 0.635 |
| LDL-C (mg/dl) | 117.40 ± 32.67 | 112.13 ± 31.78 | 0.077 | 123.32 ± 34.23 | 122.81 ± 32.61 | 0.835 |
| Glucose (mg/dl) | 101.08 ± 16.50 | 98.73 ± 17.02 | 0.128 | 99.43 ± 17.32 | 98.76 ± 19.13 | 0.614 |
| SBP (mmHg) | 129.39 ± 14.78 | 129.54 ± 15.57 | 0.910 | 130.78 ± 16.48 | 131.25 ± 17.44 | 0.692 |
| DBP (mmHg) | 74.58 ± 9.07 | 74.09 ± 9.43 | 0.554 | 74.61 ± 9.36 | 73.27 ± 9.24 | 0.045 |
| Arm curl (rep) | 20.06 ± 5.13 | 17.03 ± 4.78 | <0.001 | 17.03 ± 4.45 | 15.13 ± 4.18 | <0.001 |
| Grip (kg) | 36.11 ± 5.27 | 30.47 ± 4.71 | <0.001 | 22.79 ± 3.90 | 19.58 ± 3.29 | <0.001 |
| Low limb extension (nm) | 141.95 ± 36.75 | 108.99 ± 26.26 | <0.001 | 83.15 ± 21.93 | 68.28 ± 18.43 | <0.001 |
| Low limb flexion (nm) | 81.15 ± 21.75 | 60.61 ± 17.01 | <0.001 | 45.50 ± 13.73 | 34.80 ± 10.40 | <0.001 |
Screened studies using various methods for measuring physical fitness.
| Authors | Subjects | Target for criterion referenced standards (CRS) | Methods of criterion-referenced standards | Miscellaneous |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amini et al. [ | American football players ( | Waist circumference, quadriceps leak torque, systolic & diastolic BP | ROC curve analysis followed by logistic regression for prediction | Lessening cardiometabolic risk-like type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease |
| Jang [ | Pre & post 50 yrs men ( | Muscle strength and metabolic syndrome (triglyceride, HDL cholesterol, glucose, systolic diastolic BP) | ROC and 20% below −> low level and logistic regression (low muscle strength vs. metabolic syndrome) | Low muscle strength: lowest age-specific 20th percentile (2.56 kg/kg body weight in pre 50 vs. 2.50 kg/kg body weight in post 50) |
| Ruiz et al. [ | 69 pain treatment patients | Lower pressure pain threshold (PPT, dependent), knee mechanics (independent) | Univariable linear regression for lower PPT and multiple variable linear regression | Knee mechanics are associated with PPT |
| Sénéchal et al. [ | Systematic review ( | Moderate to vigorous physical activity, 6MWT | Logistic regression for cutoff (accelerometry measured moderate to vigorous physical activity compared to sedentary in elderly) and Bland-Altman method used; however, the results are obscure | Sedentary ratio, activity difference, and exercise time reflect the results assessed by accelerometry |
| Hooten et al. [ | Review | Changed evaluation trends shown from performance centered to health-related test and norm referenced to CR evaluation. Criterion-referenced standards vs. norm-referenced evaluation ROC introduced | ||
| Hanifah et al. [ | Review | Criterion-referenced evaluation developed history. Advantages of CRS (absolute, diagnostic supportive), drawbacks of CRS (misclassification such as false mastery and false nonmastery, nonsufficient incentives etc.) | ||
|
| ||||
| Authors | Subjects | Target for criterion-referenced standards (CRS) | Methods of criterion-referenced standards | Miscellaneous |
| Gorman et al. [ | 65~84 yrs both gender elderly ( | Chair stands in 30 s, arm curls in 30 s, 6 min walk, 8 foot up and go (1) | ROC for predicting independent physical function in later life and logistic regression | For later life (~90 yrs), internet-based program recommended ( |
| Duncan et al. [ | Review (setting CRS transition history) | Make participants get into HFZ | ROC analysis, LMS ( | Single cutoff score ≥ health fitness zone (HFZ), needs improvement zone (NIZ) set for warning potential risk |
| Kawakami et al. [ | Systematic review | Selected article had different methods, analyses, and results that prevented comparison between studies ≥ junk article | ||
| Zhu et al. [ | 55 yrs and older both gender elderly ( | BMI, hand grip strength | ROC for hand grip strength cut-points and impaired hand grip cut-points vs. mobility limitation by logistic regression | Optimal hand grip strength cut-points for mobility limitation and the cut-points discriminate BMI |
| Cureton and Warren [ | Systematic review | False-positive/false-negative analysis, regression model, visual inspection | ||
Figure 1The screening process of physical fitness-relevant appropriate threshold values to identify studies.
Results of ROC curve analysis predicting prevalence sarcopenia in elderly.
| Senior fitness variables | Prevalence (%) | AUC (95% CI) | Cutoff value | Sensitivity | Specificity |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Men | ||||||
| Arm curl (rep.) | 8.45 | 0.718 (0.679~0.754) | ≤16 | 68.75 | 71.54 | <0.001 |
| Low limb strength_ extension (nm) | 7.90 | 0.849 (0.815~0.879) | ≤109.22 | 82.93 | 75.31 | <0.001 |
| Low limb strength_ flexion (nm) | 7.90 | 0.829 (0.794∼0.861) | ≤61.72 | 80.49 | 75.94 | <0.001 |
| Sit-to-stand (rep.) | 7.50 | 0.714 (0.674∼0.753) | ≤12 | 48.72 | 83.58 | <0.001 |
| TUG (sec.) | 7.61 | 0.763 (0.725∼0.798) | >6.367 | 71.43 | 70.00 | <0.001 |
| 6 min walk (m) | 6.51 | 0.707 (0.655∼0.755) | ≤388.3 | 40.91 | 93.35 | 0.019 |
| Women | ||||||
| Arm curl (rep.) | 12.47 | 0.715 (0.684~0.744) | ≤14 | 60.36 | 71.50 | <0.001 |
| Low limb strength extension (nm) | 9.97 | 0.728 (0.695~0.760) | ≤76.04 | 86.49 | 56.74 | <0.001 |
| Low limb strength flexion (nm) | 9.97 | 0.793 (0.762∼0.821) | ≤37.74 | 86.49 | 64.67 | <0.001 |
| Sit-to-stand (rep.) | 12.0 | 0.676 (0.641∼0.710) | ≤14 | 69.66 | 61.81 | <0.001 |
| TUG (sec.) | 11.9 | 0.702 (0.669∼0.733) | >6.687 | 68.37 | 61.29 | <0.001 |
| 6 min walk (m) | 7.46 | 0.793 (0.746∼0.835) | ≤402.8 | 68.00 | 82.90 | 0.019 |
Figure 2Lean body mass according to different aging groups.